Skip to main content

About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
that the political traction they could not get before the election in attacking the president for the benghazi attack, they would try to get instead after the election by attacking susan rice for the benghazi attack. they attacked her specifically for going on sunday morning talk shows after the attack and delivering the administration's talking points about what was believed to have happened there. it later emerged that those talking points were exactly what the intelligence agencies told the administration they should say about the attack. senator mccain described that as the worst cover-up he had ever seen in his life. he said it was worse than watergate. he said that that susan rice, she's not very bright. actually used that phrase about her, "not very bright." part of the reason susan rice became such a high-profile potential nominee was because of that criticism from republican senators. more than that, it ended up becoming a very high-profile potential nomination because of the president's response to that republican criticism. >> let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplar
as secretary of state. many questions remain on the response to terror attacks in benghazi. some wonder whether or not we'll learn the truth. good morning, everybody. i'm bill hemmer. welcome to "america's newsroom." we have our nice little "elf" here today. >> i'm alisyn camerota in for martha today. she wants to avoid a vote, length i, disruptive and costly confirmation process. critics say regardless of ryce's decision the investigation into benghazi will continue. here is lindsey graham on that. >> i hold her accountable and responsible for misleading the american people. failures on the intelligence community. there is fog of war component. i think she was chosen for a reason bill: still more on that statement now with buy on york, chief political correspondent for the "washington examiner". good morning to you. so many questions remain. first off why did they make this move now? >> because time was running out and the administration, i think, hoped that opposition among republicans in the senate to rice would diminish but it didn't. the thing that really killed it, they understood, john m
and be organized and have a benghazi, they have been disjointed and unable to coordinate together. all of the things that they said, the critics said if we intervene these things will happen, now we've reached the ultimate and i cannot overemphasize, and you cannot either, the consequences of one of these attacks is horrendous. i do not think that now that these weapons have been put together, that we would have sufficient intelligence to know whether bashar assad ordered their use in time. i wish we did, but i can't say we do. >> a foreign minister said the alarm about the mixture of chemicals is basically a pretext that the united states is using it as an excuse for intervention. i mean, -- >> saying that we used the same argument to attack iraq, yes. >> right. >> yes. >> now, we've had intelligence failures before, so how do we know? what assurance can we get that our intelligence is good this time? >> this time i know of no one who disputes it. >> no one disputed it last time. >> there was, you know. >> one or two maybe. >> yeah. i just -- i think it's so much different. saddam hus
consulate in benghazi and kill four brave americans. the message has to be sent that the united states is engaged. that the united states is ready to be involved, and the united states is ready to do whatever is necessary to prevent an act that could endanger or take the lives of literally thousands and thousands of innocent people. >> senator mccain obviously blending in every issue he can possibly put on the list there. but in reality i think that sound clip points to the difficulty the president will have on any decision that comes out of this. he's going to have opposition or second-guessing from john mccain and his supporters, but what are the options if, in fact, syria makes this move? >> i think that option number one is to let russia try to do something. it's really the only country left that has a significant amount of influence when it comes to assad and assad in terms of political maneuvering. so clinton met with the foreign minister of russia, and that's our greatest hope right now. is russia can do something. russia is softening the position on regime change in syria, beca
] >> what, what is your honest position on the attacks of 9/11 of this year? the benghazi attacks? >> the benghazi attacks, you know, i know there are -- i believe there will be a report coming out tomorrow by the pickering group that will, obviously, present their view of what took place and where the problems were. my sense is that on that day that when you look at what took place in benghazi, that it is, you know, there's always with these kinds of situations there's a mix here. but clearly with regards to one of the facilities involved a direct attack on that facility. i think that there's no question that extremists were involved in those attacks, and i think that, you know, we were able to try to respond as best we could at the time. we have learned a lot, and we will continue to learn a lot from that incident. i think it's very important for us in an area where our people can be exposed the that kind of threat that we be able to respond and respond quickly in order to make sure that that doesn't happen again. >> have you seen the benghazi arb, and do you support the referra
watched al qaeda elements able to destroy our or damage severely our consulate in benghazi and kill four brave americans. the message has to be sent that the united states is in engaged and that the united states is ready to be involved and the united states is ready to do whatever is necessary to prevent an act that could endanger or take the lives of literally thousands and thousands of innocent people. >> thanks, john. we have reached a grave moment in the war that's raging in syria now for 20 months. and it's grave for the obvious fact that we believe that the assad government has weapononized chemical and biological agents and put them in a position where they can be used fairly rapidly. as you look back over the 20 months of this conflict, this follows a series of events, one leading to the other which people said could not happen. this began, remember, with peaceful demonstrations. and when assad was unable to control them or suppress, he began to fire on his own people and they began to defend themselves in a very unfair fight which everyone thought we should take sides on the si
intelligence capabilities. we sometimes screw that up as the case of benghazi demonstrates the biggest policy question which i hope we debate is how we become more nimble and understand the political trends. thanks. [applause] thank you very much. bret coming you are up. first of all entry honored to be here and particularly honored to be on the panel introduced by jim i have the greatest admiration for and to be with this mostly distinguished panel. [laughter] the exception of course is reuel. the austrian physicist used to put down his worst students by saying you're not even wrong. [laughter] that's why i am inclined to take the comments. you know, if i say to my son what is five plus seven and he says 11, that's wrong. if he says banana then he's not even wrong. what you have heard from reuel especially is a banana. what would he has just essentially done in a very slippery and disingenuous way is to say that the choice that we face is between secular dictatorship in the strike or various others and democracy we have to accept this democracy because even if it is an islamist democracy if
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)